Seite - 22 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

Physics encompass a part named On Change which itself consisted of three books, but we are not told which of the eight books these are. What then do we learn from the points discussed above on Simplicius’ introduction to Physics VI? We learn that Simplicius, following Andronicus, thought that Books I–V belonged to a work called the Physics and Books VI–VIII to one named On Change. We have seen that this does not follow necessarily from the arguments Simplicius presented here28, although this evidence certainly does not contradict his and Andronicus’ way of dividing the Physics. Yet, this is not enough to show that Andronicus’ and thus Sim- plicius’ view is to be preferred over the second option according to which also Book V belongs to the treatise On Change. Indeed, the arguments given all are based on remarks which Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Eudemus made or supposedly made about the different books of the Physics, yet the arguments make no reference to the actual con- tent of these books, and do not propose any division based on that content. As we will see later on, the reader of the Physics, however, would hardly assume that Books V and VI belong to formerly independent treatises: Aris- totle, to name just one example, starts Book VI by picking up terms that had just been introduced and discussed in Physics V 3 and that are of utmost importance for the discussion in Book VI, which obviously con- tinues Aristotle’s inquiry. But this is something of which Simplicius, too, is very aware. For, at the end of his introduction he points to the close con- nection between Books V and VI with respect to their content so as to show that they are arranged in the correct order.29 This, however, does not really fit with his claim that the formerly separate first part ends with the fifth book. 2.2.2 Second option: Books V–VIII as the treatise On Change The connection which Simplicius sees in content and line of thought between Books V and VI, rather would seem to support the second way of answering the question where the cut between the Physics and the treatise On Change lies, namely between Books IV and V. The earliest known pro- ponent of this view seems to be Nicolaus of Damascus.30 Later, it was also held by Porphyry and Philoponus.31 In addition, although he obviously holds another view in his commentary on the Physics, Simplicius, too, 28 For this see also Ross (1936), 1–3. 29 See In Phys. 6, 924, 16–23. 30 See Lulofs (1969), F.15 and 130–131, and Barnes (1997), 36. 31 For Porphyry see Simplicius In Phys. 5, 802, 7–13. For Philoponus In Phys. 1, 2, 16–17. Ross (1936), 3, also takes this to be correct view. 22 The importance of the primary kind of change ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen